quote:An 18 page paper would take me far more than 20 hours, and I'm generally considered a fast writer. When you counted the travel time to the library and the time spent there in research, I spent more than 20 hours on a six page paper just this semester.
There are few things more annoying to me than people who think just because a different major doesn't have the same requirements as theirs, the person in the major obviously doesn't work as hard.
You misunderstand--I was annoyed because the English major got to sleep like a normal person English majors work plenty hard and I have great respect for them. But they don't get to complain about physical exhaustion. And we don't get to complain about boredom Posts: 170 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You misunderstand--I was annoyed because the English major got to sleep like a normal person
I'm a busy mother of four as well as an English major. When do you think I work on papers? I'll end the suspense - at night. I've been up as late as 3 or 4 in the morning writing papers before, then managed 2 or 3 hours of sleep before getting up with my kids. I've sat in dance classes or gymnastics practices reading and making notes and I've stood at the stove to cook dinner with an open notebook on the counter so I could sneak in studying.
I get that you're not trying to be confrontational, but your claim that English majors don't get to complain about physical exhaustion really annoys me. Who are you to say what is or isn't physically exhausting or who gets to sleep when? You have no idea what I go through to not only stay in school but keep my grades up - I'm planning on grad school so I can't afford to just skate by. There's more than one English major on this board and if you took a survey, I can pretty much guarantee many of them have spent sleepless nights getting their reading and writing done.
Here's an idea - quit deciding what people can or cannot complain about unless you've walked the proverbial mile in the proverbial shoes. It will only lead you into trouble, and you're bound to make someone angry.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here's an idea - quit deciding what people can or cannot complain about unless you've walked the proverbial mile in the proverbial shoes. It will only lead you into trouble, and you're bound to make someone angry.
Rarrgh...I went to a liberal arts school and took serious humanities courses as well. They uniformly required more work than my engineering classes that were test-focused, but much less work than my project classes, and then that work could be done sitting down at a desk rather than standing at a milling machine for hours at a time.
I had no friends who were both English majors and busy mothers of four. Anyone going through undergrad as a mother of four will of course have a much more difficult time of it than a single childless 19 year old regardless of major. At least at my undergrad, the engineers ended up slaving away over circuit boards on Friday nights while the humanities majors were socializing. And when those humanities majors complained about their workload the following Monday at lunch, it was certainly annoying.
There are of course exceptions to every rule, and they usually have to do with external factors.
Posts: 170 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here's an idea - quit deciding what people can or cannot complain about unless you've walked the proverbial mile in the proverbial shoes. It will only lead you into trouble, and you're bound to make someone angry.
Rarrgh...I went to a liberal arts school and took serious humanities courses as well. They uniformly required more work than my engineering classes that were test-focused, but much less work than my project classes, and then that work could be done sitting down at a desk rather than standing at a milling machine for hours at a time.
I had no friends who were both English majors and busy mothers of four. Anyone going through undergrad as a mother of four will of course have a much more difficult time of it than a single childless 19 year old regardless of major. At least at my undergrad, the engineers ended up slaving away over circuit boards on Friday nights while the humanities majors were socializing. And when those humanities majors complained about their workload the following Monday at lunch, it was certainly annoying.
There are of course exceptions to every rule, and they usually have to do with external factors.
It's nice to see this has degenerated into yet another "my major is so much harder than yours" pissing contest.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it isn't the major—it's how hard a person decides to work.
Irami, I do realize that intangible part of my college education. However, there is always the tangible real world to deal with and I'm looking for a hefty paycheck. But when you consider the amount of money that has to be paid back to the government and compare that to your income, you start to wonder about the monetary investment, because that is very tangible.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Edgehopper: And when those humanities majors complained about their workload the following Monday at lunch, it was certainly annoying.
And listening to engineering majors talk about how much better they are than you gets really old really fast, too. I've never met an engineering major who cared, though.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The tangible and the intangible goods you'll recieve for your education are imcomparable, which is all the more disturbing because they are entangled, that is, you gained virtue through your education but no amount of virtue will cover your student loans.
From my vantage, trying to compare the incomparable is wicked business, like Cain comparing God's love for Abel's gift vs. God's love for his own gift. I even think that this trying to compare the incomparable is at the heart of Adam's sin. Trying to compare the qualitatively incomparable is evil business that comes up in varied branches of philosophy and ethics.
I'm not saying that there is an answer. You just have to curse the Fates for putting you in a world that denies that people can both have cake and eat it. Or, you can do what the economists do, fake it, and pretend that they aren't damning themselves to hell in the process.
Rivka, back to your initial question, I don't know if it's possible to answer questions concerning the role of a college degree until we answer questions about the role of institutionalized education and those first 12 before college.
posted
I'll freely admit that I consider the vast majority of college degrees to be completely devoid of college education and thus functionally useless.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here's an idea - quit deciding what people can or cannot complain about unless you've walked the proverbial mile in the proverbial shoes. It will only lead you into trouble, and you're bound to make someone angry.
I had no friends who were both English majors and busy mothers of four. Anyone going through undergrad as a mother of four will of course have a much more difficult time of it than a single childless 19 year old regardless of major. At least at my undergrad, the engineers ended up slaving away over circuit boards on Friday nights while the humanities majors were socializing. And when those humanities majors complained about their workload the following Monday at lunch, it was certainly annoying.
Belle, your experience doesn't really speak to the universal, and it is obviously a special case. Though anyone would sympathize, there is of course a grand exception to any general statement you'd care to make, and I don't think hopper was being unreasonable to exclude such external factors from consideration of the general student.
You can, and in fact I do, disagree with his evaluation of the difficulty of the English major. I would contend that if any Engineering student thought it easy, I would like to see how he did on a term paper in liberal arts. It is definetly what you make it, and it is true that English majors have the prerogative to be lazy and learn nothing. On the other hand, some of us take it on ourselves to be diverse and commited students, like I'm sure Belle is. I would say, getting an education as an English major might be HARDER, because so few people try, especially in the lower div, full of people who won't turn out to be serious students. So we get looked down upon as lazy and unproductive, when really that view only makes it harder for us to be good students.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Edgehopper: And when those humanities majors complained about their workload the following Monday at lunch, it was certainly annoying.
And listening to engineering majors talk about how much better they are than you gets really old really fast, too. I've never met an engineering major who cared, though.
Yah, I think we may have gone an unproductive route in the thread. The workloads are not comparable, they each present their share of challenges, let's just leave it at that; we don't need to equate the value or the difficulty of one over the other.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'll note that I make a distinction between
1. Entering a university with an object in mind: getting a better job than you could have otherwise
and
2. as I said treating college like a training camp for a career.
Notice that the first doesn't preclude learning or say anything about how one treats the university, fellow students or the classes. It doesn't exclude learning for learning's sake, on the PATH TO the career. It may be an object, but there is room in between for what I would call the right motivations.
Thanks for clarifying your position. That is a lot more reasonable than what I thought you were saying before.
Irami,
quote: I'm not saying that there is an answer. You just have to curse the Fates for putting you in a world that denies that people can both have cake and eat it. Or, you can do what the economists do, fake it, and pretend that they aren't damning themselves to hell in the process.
Ummmmm..... Fate won't let us eat cake, and economists go to hell? What were we talking about again?
Seriously, though, you lost me with that last line. What exactly are economists "faking," and why does that make them evil?
In the interest of full disclosure, I should tell you that I have a bit of personal interest in the answer to that question, since I plan to become an economist myself, and if that means I damn myself to hell, I'd at least like to know why. Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
It's the case that people choose between two mutually exclusive courses. In Attica, this choice was at the heart of tragedy, does Antigone obey the law of nature and bury her brother or does she obey Creon's law and let the body stay unburied, does Agamemnon kill Iphigenia and sail to Troy, or does he call the whole business off and lose the Argives' place in history.
In economics, this choice has been recast as an opportunity cost. The problem is that opportunity costs aren't considered with the same awe as in tragedy because of the introduction of "utils." The introduction of "utils" allows people to pretend to compare these incomparable courses, by setting both courses equal to these fake units and positing the that the rational choice is the one that produces the most utils, no remorse required. The situation is even easier when we switch in money for utils.
It's neat business. In effect, economics has neutered the thorny problems of tragedy in a very clear and clean manner. The problems with this approach, as they appear to me, are twofold, the reduction of tragedy to a calculation of utils takes away the awe and horror of the events by basing the decision on the feelings of the decider, but Antigone's decison was not a matter of her wanting to bury her brother; it was a matter based on knowing that in this world, living bodies stay above ground, and dead ones below. It wasn't a decison about the wants of Antigone, rather, it was a decision about whether to respect the law of nature, and shifting the decision from the law of nature to the inclination of Antigone, or the utils she would receive, makes the whole decision smaller business. Am I starting to make myself clear? _________
In my view, this discussion about an undergraduate education is has been centered entirely too much on the wants of the student, when the issue shouldn't be centered around the wants of the student, rather, the purpose of education should be determined largely by the nature of the human condition, and how education can aide us in coping with the attending tragedies as tragedies, not as economic decisions. In my view, Mac's education did that. The engineer's, or economist's, or behavioral scientist's education, I don't know so much.
_______
In chapter six of the Human Condition Hannah Arendt gives this issue a better treatment than I do in this post. I think that chapter six can be read as a stand alone chapter, if you understand that economics (oikos nomos) originally meant laws of the household, laws of biological existence, and the person who was emancipated from those laws was the political agent in the first democracy. Wives and slaves dealt with economics, while men emerged free of those bonds to conduct public affairs. Chapter five discusses how the laws of the house (economics) leaked outside of the house and started meddling in public affairs, and that's enough background to segway into chapter six.
posted
Unsurprisingly, Irami substantially misrepresents economics. First, 'utils' are only a convention for comparison, much as dollars are only a convention for exchange, but even less so.
Economists know people make choices. Even in such tragic circumstances, a choice is made. Economists choose to suppose that people make the choice they think will make them comparably better off.
From those two assumptions, and only those two assumptions, we can talk about situations where people are better off and situations where people are worse off, by seeing if, given a change, they make a different choice. For instance, if someone has choices A and B and chooses B, but then a change happens to make the choices A, B and C and the person chooses C, economists would argue (and I think most people would agree) that the change made the person better off, since it introduced a choice the person preferred to any of his or her previous choices.
That's all that's meant by utility in economics.
Irami fails to understand that utility in economics is not the utility of philosophy. Utility in economics is simply a way of expressing the fact that people do make choices, and the assumption that choices are attempts to make the most personally beneficial/least personally harmful choices (note: this does not preclude personal sacrifice, the statement is wholly in the perspective of the individual's own value system).
Economics makes no statements about remorse, those are from Irami. Economics makes no statements about tragedy, those are from Irami.
Economics does say that those choices are personally comparable, and has significant evidence this is so. Specifically, since people make such choices, there must be some comparison going on for that person, which is all that is assumed by economics. I hope Irami would not deny that people do make choices.
In some ways, Irami's statement is completely befuddling. Economics says exactly the opposite of what he talks about -- it says that Antigone's decision was wholly based on 'the feelings of the decider', and had nothing to do with 'knowing that in this world living bodies stay above ground, and dead ones below'. Social conventions are irrelevant in economics except insofar as they affect individual preferences.
Perhaps most importantly, economics says nothing at all about how people should know what makes them better or worse off (and thus make choices). It says nothing at all about how someone should cope with tragedies, beyond exactly what Irami has said one should do in a tragic situation, which is 'basing the decision on the feeling of the decider'.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:it[economics] says that Antigone's decision was wholly based on 'the feelings of the decider', and had nothing to do with 'knowing that in this world living bodies stay above ground, and dead ones below'. Social conventions are irrelevant in economics except insofar as they affect individual preferences.
Then we agree. We'll disagree that the Law of Nature is a mere social convention, but I agree with this excerpted quote.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure where I said the 'Law of Nature' (whatever that is) is a social convention. But it doesn't much matter, absolute realities are irrelevant in economics as well except insofar as they affect individual preferences. Economics is the science of what people choose, not of deep reasons they may have for choosing those things.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think part of it is that you were projecting, Irami. You believe there are fundamental right choices to make, and that people who choose against those choices are choosing wrong. For instance:
quote:In my view, this discussion about an undergraduate education is has been centered entirely too much on the wants of the student, when the issue shouldn't be centered around the wants of the student, rather, the purpose of education should be determined largely by the nature of the human condition
I think this is why you assumed utils were some sort of independently calculable value for different choices, when they are emphatically, completely, not.
Unlike you, economics does not assume there are 'right choices'. It solely takes information about preferred choices from the choices people make, and assumes that whatever choices they make are preferred to all the other choices they could have made.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unlike you, economics does not assume there are 'right choices'. It solely takes information about preferred choices from the choices people make, and assumes that whatever choices they make are preferred to all the other choices they could have made.
That last clause is a big, pregnant assumption, isn't it?
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread reminds me very much of an argument I (among others) had with Porter a few months ago elsewhere.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:An 18 page paper would take me far more than 20 hours, and I'm generally considered a fast writer.
As an aside, I'm wondering how true this is for people. For me, a rule of thumb is that, when I sit down to write, I can expect to put out 2-3 pages an hour. Now, this doesn't involve research and I spend some time putting the shape of the paper together in my head before I actually start writing, but once I was ready to write, I'd imagine that an 18 page paper would take me about 8 hours to write.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:An 18 page paper would take me far more than 20 hours, and I'm generally considered a fast writer.
As an aside, I'm wondering how true this is for people. For me, a rule of thumb is that, when I sit down to write, I can expect to put out 2-3 pages an hour. Now, this doesn't involve research and I spend some time putting the shape of the paper together in my head before I actually start writing, but once I was ready to write, I'd imagine that an 18 page paper would take me about 8 hours to write.
I've had single days when I've written the equivalent of 50+ pages of code. Guess it's not quite the same thing, as coding is more of a "stream of consciousness" sort of thing.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should mention I'm talking 12 pt Arial font, which is definitely different from 10pt Times New Roman, if that's what people are using as a comparison.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unlike you, economics does not assume there are 'right choices'. It solely takes information about preferred choices from the choices people make, and assumes that whatever choices they make are preferred to all the other choices they could have made.
That last clause is a big, pregnant assumption, isn't it?
Yes and no. Note that I'm not talking about ny metaphysical preference, merely the preference of the particular person. In some ways its nearly circular -- what a person prefers is what they choose, and people choose what they prefer. However, given that it is very difficult to find many (if any) examples of people demonstrably choosing something they don't prefer at the time, it seems pretty reasonable as an assumption for describing aggregate behavior in broad strokes.
Also, there's that its impossible to construct a useful quantitative model if you don't assume that the choice chosen was preferred by the chooser out of the perceived options.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, given that it is very difficult to find many (if any) examples of people demonstrably choosing something they don't prefer at the time, it seems pretty reasonable as an assumption for describing aggregate behavior in broad strokes.
Also, there's that its impossible to construct a useful quantitative model if you don't assume that the choice chosen was preferred by the chooser out of the perceived options.
Every choice that calls for a certain of quality of character is not chosen because it is preferred, it is chosen because that is what the situation calls for. When we are lucky, what we prefer and what the situation calls for align. When we are holy, what the situation calls for and what we prefer align for the right reasons.
Sure, these decisions may be fewer in number, but these are the important decisions.
As to the model, don't build it. The model may be appropriate for ice cream flavors and other matters of taste, but not for anything important.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry I got riled up and acted like a jerk. I shouldn't have let my current stress level spill over into this thread.
warning - personal rant ahead
I'm trying to get myself and four kids back in school, and my university has raised tuition and fees a substantial amount, not to mention what I spent on school supplies and I'm a little sick of having to defend my degree and future job choice everywhere I go. It seems if someone asks me what I do and I tell them - "I'm a mom and a student" they always ask what I'm studying and why and when I say I'm going to be an English teacher I get a lecture on how stupid I am. How I'll never make any money, and I'll quit teaching in a couple of years after I find out what it's "really like" and why don't I just go to law school, English majors do really well in law school. I get told that I'll either be shot or ridiculed by the teens I'll teach, and who would want to spend their time surrounded by teenagers anyway, don't I know what snotty ba****s they are?
Only once in the past year can I think of anyone who wasn't already my friend who responded positively to me when I said what I was going to do and she was a former high school English teacher I ran into at chemo. We sat and talked about literature and teaching and teens, and when she got up to leave she put her hand on my arm and leaned down and said "you're going to be a wonderful teacher." I almost cried, because it was one of the only times someone said something nice about it to me. Even members of my own family have been very negative (not my husband, but extended family.) It would be so much easier on me right now (not to mention cheaper) to just quit and decide I'll never go back to work again and just stay home, but I don't want to do it. Then again, when people are so discouraging, it's tempting.
Again, I'm sorry - I do acknowledge that engineering majors work very hard, and some people do skate by with English degrees, and my situation isn't the norm. I didn't mean to be so snarky.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*hug* Belle, you ARE going to be a wonderful teacher. And while I just got out of teaching (and am enjoying the freedom from paper-grading), I think there are some really great things about teaching that you will love.
Also, I think good teachers are crucial, and we should encourage every one we can!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many people consider models that allow significant improvements in standards of living, saving lives, to be important, strangely.
As for this:
quote:Every choice that calls for a certain of quality of character is not chosen because it is preferred, it is chosen because that is what the situation calls for. When we are lucky, what we prefer and what the situation calls for align. When we are holy, what the situation calls for and what we prefer align for the right reasons.
Sure, these decisions may be fewer in number, but these are the important decisions.
I am unable to decipher what it means. Could you give an example of something that is chosen (presumably because 'the situation calls for' it) that is not preferred by the person making the choice over the other options he or she perceives to be available to him or her?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I get told that I'll either be shot or ridiculed by the teens I'll teach, and who would want to spend their time surrounded by teenagers anyway, don't I know what snotty ba****s they are?
<Works in a teen center.
This can be true, but its no more true of teens than it is of the people who talk to you this way. There is a real anti-intellectual vein in our society, and perhaps people like you, who go back to get an education are seen as dangerous, or like traitors to their class or place in society.
Plus, people will always try to sabotage you if they see you are making a big change in your life. Its like that impulse that people have to get you to eat if you're dieting, or drink if you aren't planning to drink. I don't know why that happens but I have experienced it myself, and it sucks.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have found that just interacting with people on this forum I have learned or been directed to places where I have learned many things I would not have otherwise learned. I've certainly seen a benefit from the interaction with you guys. I imagine college is supposed to do the same thing.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Could you give an example of something that is chosen (presumably because 'the situation calls for' it) that is not preferred by the person making the choice over the other options he or she perceives to be available to him or her?
A catholic who carries an unwanted child to term, or anyone who enlisted after 9/11, but generally hates everything concerning with war.
______________________
Belle,
It sounds like you are running headlong into anti-intellectualism. We could start a thread, and probably should, brainstorming answers to this.
This sentiment is correct:
quote: There is a real anti-intellectual vein in our society, and perhaps people like you, who go back to get an education are seen as dangerous, or like traitors to their class or place in society.
posted
No. You're mistaking liking something with preferring it to the alternatives. One does not need to like something to prefer it to the alternatives. The Catholic in your example considered not adhering to the tenets of her religion to be a worse alternative than carrying the child to term. The person who hates everything concerned with war but enlisted after 9/11 likely had some notion that following his or her patriotic feelings was preferable to strictly avoiding involvement in war.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I think that you are misunderstanding the absolute nature of the Catholic religion or this brand of patriotism, both of which are completely independent of the agent's preferences or feelings. Saying that a person chooses to carry a baby to term is like saying a person pushed off a climb chooses to fall.
posted
Considering a lot of people do things to successfully stop from carrying a baby to term, no, it is demonstrably not like that.
Also, that someone cannot see deviating from a choice does not mean there are no alternatives. It means there are no acceptable alternatives. If anything, it emphasizes the perspective of choice.
This notion that some people, for certain things, have things inside them that prevent them from doing those things, yet those things inside them are not 'choices', is bizarre and unapproachable.
Furthermore, your position is inconsistent with reality. Even some considered extremely devout Catholics at times transgress against the church, and even some considered strong patriots fail to take certain actions because of fear or cowardice. Are only the ones who act as you say they should act possessing of these metaphysical constraints you posit?
You hypothesize metaphysical forces acting on people when none are needed. What in my explanations is lacking?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:This notion that some people, for certain things, have things inside them that prevent them from doing those things, yet those things inside them are not 'choices', is bizarre and unapproachable.
posted
BTW, I should point out that even if you did come up with a plausible example of an internal barrier so huge that it was impossible to go against it, note the constant qualifier: perceived options. If something is not perceived as an option, it doesn't fit the description anyways.
The qualifier is necessary for other reasons. Lots of people had access to the necessary materials to make leavened bread before anybody did, but it didn't even make the register as a perceived option, hence it wasn't an opportunity cost when they used some of those ingredients to make gruel or unleavened bread.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I get my degree this spring (I hope), it will represent that I have taken certain classes and had certain experiences. I think I've learned plenty of theoretical knowledge about engineering, but I feel completely unprepared to actually be an engineer.
For me, the degree also represents all the learning I did outside of the classroom. As others have mentioned, college is an extremely valuable experience in itself--interacting with people, learning to be a responsible adult, coming across a broad set of views. I've tried all sorts of new things in college. Of course, not everyone does, so the degree doesn't universally represent that kind of learning.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Masters - Learn your subject well enough that you could explain it to someone else
PHD - learn the subject so well that you couldn't possibly explain it to anyone other than another like-minded PHD
What does a College Degree tell you about a person?
It says they like to party and avoid responsibility, while at the same time telling you they have enough determination to stick to something long enough to accomplish it.
It also says they have a curious mind and have been exposed to a broad range of information.
It says they have been exposed to assorted people who are very unlike themselves, and survived the experience.
It says they are aware of a larger world.
It says they are able to communicate in a variety of ways.
And of course, it say they have a substantial knowledge in their area major.
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: When I get my degree this spring (I hope), it will represent that I have taken certain classes and had certain experiences. I think I've learned plenty of theoretical knowledge about engineering, but I feel completely unprepared to actually be an engineer.
For me, the degree also represents all the learning I did outside of the classroom. As others have mentioned, college is an extremely valuable experience in itself--interacting with people, learning to be a responsible adult, coming across a broad set of views. I've tried all sorts of new things in college. Of course, not everyone does, so the degree doesn't universally represent that kind of learning.
I had more of this type of experience with college. I grad this past December with a BS in MCD Biology. What have I done with it since then? Nothing. It's been so difficult to get a lab job that I've been looking for admin positions (where most of my job experience lies). But to me, my degree represents everything I've set out to accomplish by going to school, including academically, socially, spiritually, etc etc. And really, those are the experiences that I'm bringing into the workplace, not just some piece of paper.
Posts: 168 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah... Orincoro, if you are referring to me, IT'S A JOKE.
BUT, and this is a big but, there is too much truth in what I said. To get a Bachelor's degree, most student simply learn to pass the test. That's why they make grad students go back and take the same classes over again, only this time they actually have to learn it. Further they have to write a dissertation and appear before a board for an Oral Review in which they have to 'explain what they learned'.
Most PHD know a subject to an extreme depth, and that depth very much clouds the conversation when they try to explain it to a lay person.
True I made a joke about partying and avoiding responsibility, but most of the rest of what I said very much offsets this light comment.
I conclude by pointing out what is important, and that is, to paraphrase Dumbledore, what you do with what you know is far more important the merely what you know. Highschool drop outs can become millionaires. PHD's can live in obscurity. People with a Bachelors can succeed tremendously, yet people with a PHD can sometimes only succeed modestly.
So, the real value of an education is not so much what you have, but what you do with what you have.
You could have said that in the last post. Yes, grain of truth and intent in all "jokes," only clearly you weren't joking, you were just needling.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
English majors work plenty hard and I have great respect for them. But they don't get to complain about physical exhaustion. And we don't get to complain about boredom 
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
